# tv [untitled]    April 15, 2012 6:30pm-7:00pm PDT

6:30 pm
>> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> no. >> thank you. please make this change. ms. tidwell? >> if we want to do the nopa one next. can we did the one block to be consistent? >> that block has a population of 176 people. >> she is just thinking, processing. >> deviation would be 2%.
6:31 pm
the deviation for district 1 would be -5.23%. >> i would prefer this. >> thank you. again, population of 176. aviation the district 5, 2.0. deviation of district 1, -5.23%. appreciate that there is another move for the late corridor. >> yes. >> yes. >>yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> no. >> yes. >> thank you. please make this change. lake st.. >> if we could start with the block between 25th and 26. >> that block has a population
6:32 pm
of 331 people bringing the deviation for district 12 - 4.78%, and the deviation of district two two -5.08%. >> can we look at the other side of lake st.? >> can i make one observation? i believe if we reversed our decision about the median strip, i think that what allowed us to stay within 5% and move the 64 people back to d2. we would be finished, i think.
6:33 pm
>> so proposed. >> i think this is actually two changes together the i am proposing. that we move this block, and then as the second accompany an adjustment, to move the three blocks, the median strip -- strips, i guess -- >> yes. >> with 64 people back from d3 to d2. >> ok, anyone have any questions? the proposal is -- one second, let me just take it one more time and come back to you. the proposal is to reverse -- we will take them in this order. i will just reverse the order. reverse the decision we just made around a median strip. 64 as the population, and then additionally make the change that was just proposed a moment ago that would have brought the
6:34 pm
deviation to -5.08%. this moves and offsets the -- that an gets under 5%. is that correct? >> it is going to be a squeaker, but yes, that is the proposal. with this required two votes on two separate moves? >> yes. i would love to do them together, but i'm sure someone will disagree with that, so we will keep them separate. >> i just wanted to clarify, on lake st., the second block, what the number on that was. i presume that they are the same because it was roughly 600. >> that has a population of 318 people.
6:35 pm
>> ok, everyone clear on the question? >> for clarification right now, the southern border for two is where? and a street name? >> yes. on the east side order. >> it is at geary, then pine up octavia, over the california, down the canon, to pine again, to scott, back to bush, down to presidio, down to coast, broderick, and then it goes to church, masonic -- to turk,
6:36 pm
masonic -- >> so and that's geary, up to california to sixth avenue to lake street to 25th avenue, back to california, and then west of 32. >> just an observe. know we have been struggling with the deviation between one and two for many weeks now. i know we had many discussions around the cathedral hill border but the numbers are district five is over deviation by 2%. i'm not necessarily proposing anything. it's just an observation there may be population within 55.2
6:37 pm
border if the task force members are continuing to think or struggle with the 1-2 deviations. >> the pros poll as, we will take them one at a time but the is to reverse the 64 population decision. the second would be to go to the 25th avenue block. everyone clear on the questions? >> yes. apologize. >> can i ask the implication of creating an assembly district for the purposes of 64 people on the median? >> it's just more administrative work. that doesn't mean there are more registered voters there. >> we are cleaning up a lot of the lines. there are zero populations ones which are really annoying for
6:38 pm
them and there's another couple of population ones you should take a look at. >> ok. >> on the first question, reversing the move and decision. mr. alanso? >> yes. >> thank you. >> mr. leigh? >> yes. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> i'm sorry, could you repeat the proposal? >> 64 reversinging it from d-3 back to d-2. sorry, other way. reversing it from -- thank you. >> yes. >> mr. mondejar? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> i'm in favor of fewer so i think i'm no on the question. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> miss tidwell? >> yes. >> please make this change. as you're doing that can you give the new deviation or temporary deviation. >> for district 3 the temporary
6:39 pm
deviation is negative 3.5%. for district two the temporary deviation is negative 4.54% and for district one negative 5.23%. >> thank you. >> and the population being 270 with deviation. >> population for this is 331. >> that's what i said. >> deviation for district one would be negative 4.78%. for district two, next to 5%. we're going to look at the decimals right now. look at the decimals after the change. can we make the change temporarily? >> yes, please. let's not presume there's agreement.
6:40 pm
sorry, even though we discussed it. miss tidwell? >> discussion? >> i'm sorry. >> two points i believe it would be in range, it would be 4.97. >> you said discussion? >> yes. that's not a question though. we -- >> can we look at the layer of sequences defined? >> what does that have to do with this question? >> got it. >> there's no public submission for the boundry but we can look at the planning neighborhoods. this is the planning neighborhoods of sea cliff. would you like to also see, it also goes and extend out. any other questions? all right.
6:41 pm
miss tidwell? >> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> yes. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. >> miss lam? >> yes. >> miss ma melara? >> yes. >> mr. league? >> yes. -- mr. leeg -- leigh. >> yes. >> no. >> i will look at the deviations. >> thank you. >> can i make a comment while at the look at the numbers? >> sure. i think the pop lore initially had either ben the four blocks between two and five as a way to clean the lines. so since those are not submitted as part of a neighborhood, i would suggest we look there to the extent we still have a population issue. >> ok. >> mr. chair, we have the deviation.
6:42 pm
it is negative 4.997%. >> are you comfortable? >> i'm comfortable. >> thank you. thanks for that exercise. let's visit now the less again attempting to move fairly swiftly through each of these considerations. let's go to the question of d-60 border, at the same time we will secondarly visit the maria manner.
6:43 pm
>> i don't know where they are continue may affect it. if you can tell us where they are. >> sure. give us the other two. so we will look out -- so the next -- the next one is between districts 10 and 9. bart line we would align to. this is an area that has three people so the line would move west from bayshore to the freeway, between 280 and depaul to confirm to the bike district. we're going to highlight this right now.
6:44 pm
>> i'm going to put the bart district layer up as well so i'm sure to highlight the correct area. so the highlighted area represents three people and this population is moving from nine
6:45 pm
to ten. the deviation of district 10 would become negative 0.78 pirs% and district 9, 4.8%. >> district 9 becomes 4.8, is that correct? >> yes. >> from the current 4.81. ok. d-10 would become with this change negative .87. d-9 would become 4.80 by moving this population of three. any questions? mr. alanso? >> sure. >> mr. leigh? >> yes. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> miss lam? >> yes. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. >> miss pilpel? >> yes. >> mr. schreiber?
6:46 pm
>> yes. miss tidwell? >> yes. >> please make the change. >> we have one more population move that we wanted to bring to you. this one is between the district seven and district four. this is a congressional line you would align to. it's 19th after median. it would move from 7 to 9. total population -- >> 7 to 4 you mean? >> yes. how can it move from 7 to 9? >> yes, 7 to 4. not 7 to 9. >> what's the population? >> nine. >> resulting deviation? >> the resulting deviation would be for district four, negative.96% and four district seven, negative .3%.
6:47 pm
>> ok. any questions? >> i guess i would like to know, i drive there a lot. i don't see anyone living on the medium. can you tell me a little bit more about that? >> the census apparently have more responses from that median. >> the median speaks. [laughter] >> well then maybe they're very small. thank you. >> mr. alanso? >> yes. >> mr. leigh? >> yes. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> miss lam? >> yes. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> i just need to know which direction it's going. >> from seven to four. >> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> miss tidwell? >> yes. >> please make this change.
6:48 pm
>> would you like to see the zero population move that were made per task force direction since the last meeting, or should we go to those later? >> i would rather focus on population at this time. >> ok, then that would conclude this particular item. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> now we can go d-6, d-3. mr. leigh, i said two and you said what about the other? oh, no, sorry. you took us back to ensuring we weren't satisfying -- ok. these are -- >> these are blocks between mason and powell, south of o'farrell street.
6:49 pm
so if we can look at the population of those three blocks. >> are those the blocks? >> yes. >> that is a population of 365 people. it would bring the deviation for district 6 to 1.13%. i'm sorry. and the deviation for district 3 to negative 4%. >> negative 4? >> negative 4%, correct. >> i will propose that we make that change. question? >> yes. >> so there was the issue raised of first the hotel. this will address that but am i correct this is larger than that? >> it does. it goes two blocks up to the northernmost of those three blocks to include the maria manor property we heard testimony about. >> is that another borough?
6:50 pm
>> yes, i believe so. >> i ask we take those in turn. >> let's separate please. the bristol hotel. so that population. >> that is the population of 116 people. it would bring the deviation for district 6 to -- >> 0.79% and deviation for district 3 to negative 3.66%. >> my apologies. the room has gotten cool now. >> yeah. >> that's a good problem. >> population 116, 6.78, d-3 and f-66. miss tidwell? >> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> further depopulating three,
6:51 pm
no. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. miss lam? >> yes. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> mr. alanso? >> yes. >> please make this change. >> mr. leigh? >> then just the second part of it to move then the other two blocks into three. >> and -- >> i'm sorry, into six. >> question, the manors in both blocks? >> no, the northern block. we could just take that one, the northern block and that would be fine with me. as far as my proposal is concerned. >> ok. >> so desubmit the southern of those two blocks? exactly. >> miss tidwell? >> i would like to comment that i think if we are considering putting portions of the tenderloin, continuing to add to the tenderloin, it raises the question of moving the line i think, well, in my mind again
6:52 pm
sort of revisiting the mission market digs continuation -- distinction that's been raised because i think pot point you're going to -- we heard a number of testimony about the bristol hotel, and i could see a distinction in making that line, we're still missing numerous blocks in the tenderloin sofment my suggestion would be to the extent we're going to consider this, we need to consider changes, sort of referring to one of the speakers for this central business district between market and mission, which we previously had changed back. >> ok, i'm asking you to hold two thoughts, if you will, in your minds at one time. remember that, let's highlight the central business district component, the potentially gets added. >> i think it was probably third. mission to market. >> 803 people.
6:53 pm
>> you would like that area to be highlighted on the map? >> yes, please. >> that is a population of 803 people, would bring the deviation for district three to negative 2.57%. and deviation for district six to negative .31%. >> and that southern border of
6:54 pm
that highlighted area, is that market street? >> mission. >> i'm sorry, mission sfleet >> that's mission from market to mission. >> correct. >> thank you. >> and that's third street. >> and that's third street. >> i'm opening the task force comment, that we're going to for instance add in the manner we had significant, sort of one person call out, we also had significant testimony about the remaining blocks between posting and so i would be looking at more of the completeness there. >> just for the population on that one block that is on the table? >> maria manor? >> right. >> one moment, please. >> the highlighted area has a population of 238. would you like to hear the resulting deviations?
6:55 pm
>> i think just gave them to us, but sure. >> for district six, .96%. for district 3, negative 3.84%. >> ok, you didn't give those two -- one more time, please. >> 128 people. >> 128. ok. thank you. ok, discussion. mr. schreiber? >> i have always been supportive of putting all of the post geary into six and moving the boundary from market to mission. but at this point it's getting into beyond minor tweak. that i hoped we would be addressing today. i'm satisfied where where we are with putting the bristol hotel back in the d-6 today. i would probably even be supportive of the maria manor block, but not in favor of
6:56 pm
reopening the discussion of market to mission and all of the post end geary. >> thank you. mr. leigh? >> it's sort of along the same lines that member schreiber just discussed. i agree with that. i also would be open to moving this block. it is a much smaller population move than any of the blocks that we have yet to move or that we didn't quite get to between post and geary. i think the block that was next between leavenworth and jones is 940 people and i agree with what member schreiber said, that's too much population at this point for us to consider moving and if that would require moving the boundary on the other side from market to mission, i would be reluctant to do that as well. the motivation behind this, it's the context of 100-some person
6:57 pm
move that would allow another s.r.o. to say. that's the spirit behind the proposal. >> in pilpel. >> this puts me in a difficult position. i want to put population in three if possible but i'm not crazy going south of market. i have gone back and forth on that. i think on balance, i would rather stay at market street for the 36 border east of third. and if that passes, so be it. and further imbalancing three and so i'm not with the hotel move. >> thank you. any other discussions? ok, proposal on the table is 128 population move. d-6 deviation becomes .96, d-3 is negative 3.84.
6:58 pm
>> is that correct? >> yes. >> miss tidwell? >> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> no. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. >> miss lam? >> yes. >> mr. leigh? >> yes. >> thank you. mr. alanso? >> yes. >> thank you. please make this change. ok. next question before us is -- we
6:59 pm
just dealt with central business district. d-9 border at 16th. >> i wanted to do that. >> ok, please. >> to revisit it. but that was something we had already visited. >> miss mondejar? >> that would be testimony we received this morning, a lot of communication, original communication. i would like the task force to reconsider moving the line to 15 and to extend it to valencia and harrison. >> is that the highlighted area? >> i think.

40 Views